Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

grailife,

Good post.

good one

logical,

how dare you speak such thing and everyone for agreeing with him. God do exist and that's that. no questions about it.

my heart bleeds for you lots.

Apparently people are not reading the whole post.

Maybe it is too long for some.

[size=16pt]The person is actually FOR the existence of God. [/size]

This is why the bible tells us not to be hasty before we have heard the whole story.

@ drusilla

i did go back to understand what the guy was saying, but it was to long so whatever.

grailife:

Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Two contaries be infinite? Also the word God does not mean infinite goodness, and that in itself isn't the objection skeptics bring to the table, but that I suppose is irrelevant.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I'm not sure I agree with "For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will.", but the rest is pretty bang on.

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

I sincerely doubt that.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

You've just used a lot of words to disguise an argument devoid of actual content. What you've basically said is, "things are in motion, everything I know needs something to give them a push first, well everything except something else that is in motion which *ahem* did not require an initial push though, and that arbitrary thing would be my God, thank you very much". Why every other thing except your God required a push? Damned if we know. Now, I very well may be wrong on this, but don't things in quantum just happen without a "push"? Also, there are theories for how things got into "motion" in the first place, and they don't require the push of a deity anyway.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

What? Were you trying to argue that because entropy occurs, then God exists? I'm not completely sure what your argument was, but it looks highly ridiculous. Just FYI, the Universe isn't infinite, if that was what you were getting at. Also, arbitrary claims and assumptions without any backing evidence, do not proofs make. You saying there must be a being with immunity against entropy, doesn't make it so.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

This is getting (improbably) more and more ridiculous, what, in all that is holy, does "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be" mean? Anybody? Also, the science community doesn't claim that the Universe came from nothing, IIRC, it claims that before the Universe there was some kind of a singularity that expanded, and became the Universe.

Also, I IRC, quantum gives the possibility of quantum particles (right word?) coming from nothing.

Finally, No, actually we can help but postulate the existence of some being with the ability to just simply exist, for it may very well be nothing but "God of the gaps" argument, and we all know how that's worked out since ages past.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

What? No seriously, what? People are good, fire is hot, therefore God? Seriously? No I'm not even going to bother. I mean who needs to explain that "good" really is a relative concept, and most of our morals and ethics are simply empathic and self preserving ideals (at least at their basest levels), that have evolved with human civilisations, brains, etc.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

No they don't, should suffice.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

The obvious objection to that reply would be to ask why an omnipotent God needs evil to produce
Good. Why not just circumvent it, and just give goodness and be done with evil altogether. An omnipotent God could very well do that. The argument of good and evil is a silly one though, at least in my opinion.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

No. Nature does not work towards a determined end.



Reading through your "proof", all you've done was beg the question, make baseless assumptions, make strange claims, and assert that everything else is subject to arbitrary rules that for some bizarre unclear reason don't apply to your God.

grailife:


I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

This can be said to be the cosmological arguement of proving the existence of God from a closed Bible. 

Motion is not natural, on the contrary, what is natural is rest.  Everything that moves has to be moved by someone or something that has been moved by something.  Just like a pack of dominoes fall from a single move of the mover.  Every effect has a cause and this first mover or first cause is the Eternal being, the uncreated Creator who is the Mighty-Strong-One-Elohim, The Covenant-keeping-never-failing-Yahweh, The El-shaddai-All-Sufficient-God and The Ever-present-I am that I am.

@grailife
Wonderful. Keep it up.

The only post I can agree with on this thread is the one posted by KAG, I can only add that the most we as humans at the moment with the level of knowledge we posses is that all scientific evidence does not point to a deity creating the universe and everything in it . As a matter of fact the evidence tends to show that we have no reason to believe that there was any god behind the genesis of the universe because there are other explanations.

The most intelligent position i would contend is that we do not know for a fact for now and we should endeavour to open our minds in order to investigate the truth and not speculate based on some ancient text or the proclamations of some "holy man"

In conclusion god may or may not exist but the real question i think is how can anybody say they know categorically or prove the existence, because it is simply impossible to know the answer to that question based on the current state of science and information available to us. I therefore ask that people keep their minds open and also try to cultivate a culture of learning and not of ignorance based on religion which is our first failed attempt as humans to interpret the natural world.

dont know about god but i believe in aliens

There is a GOd. I am not a born again Christian but I can tell you this. He has bought me out of many situations that even today I can't explain. He has blessed me and He keeps on blessing me.

If there is a god then which is it? is it all-ah, jehova, buddah, the hindu gods, horus, kuns,zeus, sango,shinto, ba'al, ajenaku. . . . . . .  which of the gods or goddess should we believe in. the mo'slems believe very well in their god and believe that he answers their prayers and takes very good care of them, they believe that all his revelation in his holy book(ko'ran) will surely come to pass so do the christains and all the other religions in the world. what i fail to understand is why a god that revealed himself to people in the first centuary living in middle east(christains, mo'slem and jews)  throw over 2 billion people living in asia(india and china) who he never revealed himself to at any point in time in history in hell for enternity for not believing in him. it just does'nt make sense to me. the other day i was talking to a christain friend and she told me that he likes chinese people but its just unfortunate that they will all end up in hell(lol) when there is no mention of china in the bible even though china was existing at that time and when no prophet was sent to them from the bible or the ko'ran.

If you read the bible, ko'ran and other religious text with an opened mind u will see that there are a lot of good things and a lot of things that just don't make sense in them but the bottom line is that there is nothing in them that can not be written by any man even though i will admitt they were written by great men who wrote what and how they understood the world and how they believe life should be lived here on earth. Religion has more to do with imperialism and expanding a particular ideology and culture that is seeking to dominate the entire world. the mo'slems believe that the arabs are the people that were choosen by all'ah hence they should be highly respected while christains believe that the jews are the people that were choosen by god. the chinese believe they are the chosen people by their various gods, while the indains who are mostly hindus believe they are the chosen people by their various hindu gods and goddess and the saga continues, if god can physically reveal himself to the people living in the 1st centuary then why would'nt he reveal him self to the world in these mordern day and time?

i have heard grapical testimonies of christains and mo'slem who all claimed that they went to heaven to see their various gods and they were both very sincere and passionate when sharing their testimonies, some of them were weeping as they shared their testimonies, how then can it be all true?there was this mos'lem man i saw on TV on an arabic channel the other day as i was flipping channels who was weeping profusley and sharing his experience, he said that he was taken to the world beyond on his sick bed where he meet with the prophet mo'hammed and the prophet showed him hell and paradise from a distance he describe in details what he saw, he said he saw so many angels but the prophet told him he could not see all'ah because he has'nt been chosen to enter paradise because only those that were in paradise can see all'ah, he said the doctors had pronouced him dead but he came back to life in the car when his body was to be taken home for burial, i have heared countless christains share such stories too about them meeting jesus and god in heaven and it only makes me laugh because they can not all be true. yet people believe in all this things to the extent of giving up their lives for it. so the question is if there is a god then which one is it? because people of different religions and faiths have so many claims of encountering their various gods and goddess weather in their sleep or while walking on the street in the afternoon or at night.

so many mo'slems have claimed they have meet god in one way or the other, same with so many christains, i believe there are jews that are claiming that they have meet him too, it will not be suprising if there are hindus or buddist monks who will tell you they have meet him in one way or the other and they will all tell you that the god they meet or encountered is the same god that revealed himself in their holy books or the god that their religion subscribes too. i can't say that those who claim to have seen these revelations are lying because i was'nt there when they saw their revelations but if there really is a god then which one is it? because all the gods in all the religions claim they are the way, the truth and the life and no one goes to heaven unless they subscribe to their ways as revealed in their holy books be it the ko'ran ,the bible the mormon bible, hindu text, buddhist text etc. if there is a god the which one is it? , what makes jehova the god of the bible better than all'ah the god of the ko'ran?  why is the jewish god a false god and what makes all'ah better than buddah? why is is'lam false and why should christainity be regarded as the truth? why should judaism be discarded?what makes sikhism a false religion and why should their god be discarded?  why is is'lam better than buddhism? what makes kuns less of  a god than all'ah and why should jehova be regarded as a better god than zeus? why is all'ah better than jehova? why should jehova the god of the bible be trusted and believed in and not alla'h? why is kuns better than horus? why do all  the gods of all religions claim they are the alpha and the omega the creators of the heavens and the earth? and why do their followers always claim that they have encountered or physically seen them in one way or the other? and who are you to say that those that claim they have seen or encountered other gods other than the one you believe in are lying and who told you the god of your religion is the only true god? Pls i need answers. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth, its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water, colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
The human brain, simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information, did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?

3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.

There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence -- arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people, to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win, " It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, ", night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."8 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."9

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people, blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects, created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature, walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.10

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."11 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."12

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.

If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."13 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."

God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."14

So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way. If you need more information about Jesus' claim to divinity, or about God's existence, or if you have similar important questions, please email us.


I just asked Jesus into my life (some helpful information follows),

I may want to ask Jesus into my life, please explain this more fully,

I have a question,


About the Author: As a former atheist, Marilyn Adamson found it difficult to refute the continuously answered prayers and quality of life of a close friend. In challenging the beliefs of her friend, Marilyn was amazed to learn the wealth of objective evidence pointing to the existence of God. After about a year of persistent questioning, she responded to God's offer to come into her life and has found faith in Him to be constantly substantiated and greatly rewarding.

(1) Romans 1:19-21
(2) Jeremiah 29:13-14
(3) R.E.D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20
(4) The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL)
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
( John 8:12
(9) John 14:6
(10) John 14:11
(11) Jeremiah 31:3
(12) John 3:16
(13) Revelation 3:20
(14) John 10:27-29

@abasifo

Please can you provide answers to the questions i asked above? I will like to engage in an objective discussion with you hope you have the open mind to engage, will be waiting for your reply since you have made a flat out assertion that you believe in the biblical god and hence he must be the one that controls everything in the world and he alone is god.

@kag
funny enough i agreed with most of your answers to original poster. sometimes xtians go to ridiculus lenghts in tryng to prove Gods existence,  most of what he said was superfuous crap (sorry)
but dear kag
what does 'singularity expanded to become the universe mean?
what is singularity if its nothing??
what u said in esssence is nothing expanded to become the universe,  which is what the poster was saying anyways,

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

imhotep:

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

Why did you make this assertion?

simmy:

@kag
funny enough i agreed with most of your answers to original poster. sometimes xtians go to ridiculus lenghts in tryng to prove Gods existence, most of what he said was superfuous crap (sorry)
but dear kag
what does 'singularity expanded to become the universe mean?
what is singularity if its nothing??
what u said in esssence is nothing expanded to become the universe, which is what the poster was saying anyways,

Not quite. A singularity is something. Its qualities may be difficult to decipher at this point, but it isn't nothing.

imhotep:

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

No, if there were no people that claimed gods exist, there would be no [need for] atheists.

KAG:

No, if there were no people that claimed gods exist, there would be no [need for] atheists.

Once again, NO ATHEIST has been able to disprove the existence of God/gods.

imhotep:

Once again, NO ATHEIST has been able to disprove the existence of God/gods.

which is why I know that when die I'm going to Valhalla. Praise Odin!

KAG:

Not quite. A singularity is something. Its qualities may be difficult to decipher at this point, but it isn't nothing.

No, if there were no people that claimed gods exist, there would be no [need for] atheists.

a singularity as i understand it in simplistic terms is absolute symmetry,  which is identical with nothingness,  what is nothing? nothing is nothing because for something to be nothing it has to be contrasted with something, however when you have absloute symettry, everything becomes everything which makes everything nothing.hope that made sense
thats why entropy increases in the universe as differentiation grows (or more matter) is being created (not necessarily by a creator).
by extrapolation if entropy begins to decrease it reaches a stage where everything becomes symetrical (undistinguishable) and that is what is referred to as a singularity,  which is just a euphemism (or more accurately a big word scientists use to confuse us) for NOTHING!

if u really think of it from a philosophical point of view nothing really cannot exist,

simmy:


a singularity as i understand it in simplistic terms is absolute symmetry, which is identical with nothingness, what is nothing? nothing is nothing because for something to be nothing it has to be contrasted with nothing, however when you have absloute symettry, everything becomes everything which makes everything nothing.hope that made sense

No. In any case, uniformity would probably constitute just one property of the singularity.

thats why entropy increases in the universe as differentiation grows (or more matter) is being created (not necessarily by a creator).
by extrapolation if entropy begins to decrease it reaches a stage where everything becomes symetrical (undistinguishable) and that is what is referred to as a singularity, which is just a euphemism (or more accurately a big word scientists use to confuse us) for NOTHING!

So gravitational singularities are nothing? News to me. To be clear, this is the first time I'm coming across your definition of singularity.

if u really think of it from a philosophical point of view nothing really cannot exist,

Why not? I think it possible to postulate nothing from a philosophical point of view.

i wonder why all the religious people in the house are refusing to provide answers to my questionsbut dancing around some other things.

@kag
uniformity is not just one of the properties of a singularity. Absolute uniformity is!

A singularity be it gravitational or other is a phenomenom where something cancels out something perfectly, resulting in nothing.
zero doesnt really exist in mathematics, its just a concept, an abstract, philosophically, its impossible for nothing to exist because there has to be something to contrast the nothing against.
Singularity is the closest physics can get to describe mathematically the concept of nothingess since it is impossible to represent nothing mathematically. So if a singularity is something it is only because our scientists are ill equipped to aptly describe the concept of nothing.
i hope that made sense!

simmy:

@kag
uniformity is not just one of the properties of a singularity. Absolute uniformity is!

Isn't that a tautology? Can something that is uniform be any more absolutely uniform?

A singularity be it gravitational or other is a phenomenom where something cancels out something perfectly, resulting in nothing.

Where are you getting your definition from? That's not the essence of a singularity. Gravitational singularities, for instance, "the rate of change of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity). That is, rather tha a negation to nothingness, an infinite increase in propert(y)(ies).

zero doesnt really exist in mathematics, its just a concept, an abstract, philosophically, its impossible for nothing to exist because there has to be something to contrast the nothing against.

That's wrong. Zero does exist in mathematics. Nothing can exist philosophically (for one thing, the idea of "existence preceding essence" would be impossible without some form of nothingness). Even by your criterion, nothing can exist, because it can be contrasted with the somethings we can already perceive.

Singularity is the closest physics can get to describe mathematically the concept of nothingess since it is impossible to represent nothing mathematically. So if a singularity is something it is only because our scientists are ill equipped to aptly describe the concept of nothing.
i hope that made sense!

That's all wrong. For what it's worth, a good example of nothingness is to be found in the make-up of an atom. Within an atom there is a great deal of nothing.

Idiotic christian fundamentalists. All these long windy posts just to prove god exists, pffss, There is only one God and thats the Almighty SUN GOD

@kag
read ur post and the link u provided. behind all the long winded statements is a simple fact, a singularity is that point where all laws break down and cease to function, everything becomes everything, in very simplistic evryday language thats what a singularity is!

Isn't that a tautology? Can something that is uniform be any more absolutely uniform?

no its not tautology. absolute uniformity is very different from uniformity.


That's wrong. Zero does exist in mathematics. Nothing can exist philosophically (for one thing, the idea of "existence preceding essence" would be impossible without some form of nothingness). Even by your criterion, nothing can exist, because it can be contrasted with the somethings we can already perceive

you re right. just one small problem. that im trying to grapple with the concept of nothiness proves that something exists. so philosophy assumes its unnecesary to try n work the logic in your direction.


T[b]hat's all wrong. For what it's worth, a good example of nothingness is to be found in the make-up of an atom. Within an atom there is a great deal of nothing[/b]

what are you? old school? , there s so much in a n atom. protons neutrons , and their are particles that have been discovered that exist in sub atomic particles.

simmy:

@kag
read your post and the link u provided. behind all the long winded statements is a simple fact, a singularity is that point where all laws break down and cease to function, everything becomes everything, in very simplistic evryday language thats what a singularity is!

No, everything doesn't become everything, but the laws that we know do break down, when a singularity is involved. Those of course don't make it nothing (even the notion of "everything bcoming everything" indicates a something).

Isn't that a tautology? Can something that is uniform be any more absolutely uniform?

no its not tautology. absolute uniformity is very different from uniformity.

How so?

That's wrong. Zero does exist in mathematics. Nothing can exist philosophically (for one thing, the idea of "existence preceding essence" would be impossible without some form of nothingness). Even by your criterion, nothing can exist, because it can be contrasted with the somethings we can already perceive

you re right. just one small problem. that im trying to grapple with the concept of nothiness proves that something exists. so philosophy assumes its unnecesary to try n work the logic in your direction.

Yes, it indicates that "I" as a thinking subject exists and "I" am involved in thought of contrasting two different ideas. However, that isn't an indictment on the idea of nothing or nothingness, as thinking about those ideas are necessary for several philosophical cosiderations.

T[b]hat's all wrong. For what it's worth, a good example of nothingness is to be found in the make-up of an atom. Within an atom there is a great deal of nothing[/b]

what are you? old school? , there s so much in a n atom. protons neutrons , and their are particles that have been discovered that exist in sub atomic particles.

Oh, no, I know all that, but within the atom is a great deal of nothing. Protons, neutrons and electrons make a relatively small part of the atom.

No, everything doesn't become everything, but the laws that we know do break down, when a singularity is involved. Those of course don't make it nothing (even the notion of "everything bcoming everything" indicates a something).

the point where all laws break down rendering all things indistinguishable is the closest you ll ever get to a definition of nothing.

How so?
how so? uniformity is relative. absolute uniformity is absolute!

Yes, it indicates that "I" as a thinking subject exists and "I" am involved in thought of contrasting two different ideas. However, that isn't an indictment on the idea of nothing or nothingness, as thinking about those ideas are necessary for several philosophical cosiderations
this argument really depends on your definition of nothing, i still maintain that nothing is just a concept. the universe is yet to provide us with an example of nothing. (empty space isnt nothing)


Oh, no, I know all that, but within the atom is a great deal of nothing. Protons, neutrons and electrons make a relatively small part of the atom.

like i said earlier, empty space isnt nothing a lot of 'something'works through empty space.